*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

IMO, it is similar to the conumdrum faced by golfing officials re putting.

Many years ago, an American golfer by the name of Sam Snead was faced with the twin problems of a dodgy putting stroke and a bad back.

For a time, he successfully combatted these problems by adopting a croquet-like approach , i.e. standing square-on to the hole and using a pendulum type action.

Seeing his success, naturally many others followed.

Eventually, such a practice was out-lawed for no other reason than the powers-that-be determined that it was contrary to the way the game was supposed to be played.

A cricket ball is supposed to be bowled.

Scientists have proven that virtually all bowling actions produce some degree of flexion.

Scientists have also proven that a doosra can only be delivered with a throwing, rather than bowling, action.

It is, IMO, irrelevant whether that throwing action produces a similar degree of flexion to a bowling action.

After all, people would be up in arms if Roger Clemens was declared legal for bowling because the degree of flexion in his action was less than 15.

The doosra, as practiced by many today, should be treated no differently to Sam Snead's putting stroke..

yeah, but given it involves only a degree or so more flexion than normal deliveries of so many other bowlers, I don't think it is necessary to ban the doosra. I like the law the way it is at the moment. People get found out if they flex more than 15 degrees and/or if they change their action while bowling during the tests from the way they bowl in matches. Like I said, it is black and white. It is better left this way till they come up with further findings and stuff.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, Kazo, I was only directing that to LE and Social. Your point seems acceptable to me, but there is simply no way we can be sure of what the intentions of a bowler is, so it is not very practical, IMHO. Plus, there are guys who whip up arm speed at the point of delivery, like Wasim and Agarkar and a few others, even Gillespie comes to mind. What you would end up doing is banning those guys too. Plus, while bowling slower balls etc., most fast bowlers including McGrath do slow down the release of the ball, which is similar to quickening the release of the ball at the poin of delivery, because both involves elbow flex. There are just too many variables here and it is not "black and white" as the current law is.

I'm sorry mate, I undertstand your point but the bowlers you mentioned do not generate their pace with their wrist. Which is often the small subtle action I'm implying. To be generic they were not generating this pace of theirs through this subtle action. It may have been heightened at release but it's visible the difference. You can compare Wasim and Botha in pertaining to my theory yet you know well enough what it is I'm implying.

Actually bowling slower balls has more to do with the positioning of the fingers on the ball. E.g. McGrath releasing the ball with his middle finger while sliding off his index finger.

Furthermore, when a spinner chucks (as I've outlined by the flex and release point in previous posts) it is much more visible. This subtle action certainly contributes to more revolutions on the ball as the ball is released slightly faster because of the slight flex/push at release. In this case, spinners put one side and fast-bowlers on the other, it is MUCH easier to see who is a chucker when they're a spinner. In this reasoning it is why I see someone like Murali as a chucker, and not because of his hyper-extention and flexion really (although he really pushes the limits).

 

[Top_Cat]

I’m not going to get into Cricket 101 for you mate. What I see as a throw is defined by the ‘action’ used just before release at the arc. While all bowlers extend their arm to a degree, thank you biomechanics, some bowlers extend it just before the arc that upon release this action becomes a ‘chuck’. While players with good actions like McGrath also straighten their arm, they generate their pace before the release at the arc and not at the point of release itself. My problem with many bowlers currently is that before release at the arc they subtly exert more force and straighten their arm as well which results in a chuck. Forget Murali for a moment, and consider other bowlers with dubious actions. You can see such an abuse in their action and it IS visible to the naked eye.

Aha, so you were talking about your personal view and not some 'culturally-agreed' definition of a bowl afterall. Thanks for clearing that up. Try not to misrepresent your own views as a consensus next time.

As for whether it's visible to the naked eye, you'd think that the fact there are bowlers who to the naked eye are obvious chuckers but under slower analysis are proven not to be (Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee's hyper-extension, for example) would give you some motivation for pause. That would be more scientific than assuming you could decide whether a bowler bowls with a legal action from outside the boundary rope or looking at vision from zoom-lensed cameras with no scales or measuring tools of any sort positioned same.

Except that the same bio-mechanists that determine whether a bowler's action is legal or not (and, btw, who were instrumental in having tolerance levels raised to 15 degrees) have also determined that it is impossible to bowl a doosra with what is commonly accepted as a bowling action, i.e. irrespective of the degrees of flexion, it is delivered with a throwing rather than bowling action.

Scientists have also proven that a doosra can only be delivered with a throwing, rather than bowling, action.

I've heard or read no such thing anywhere and I'm wondering where you did. I've heard that those who've been pinched so far have bowled with suspect doosras and that it's "difficult" to bowl a doosra legally but nowhere have I read that biomechnists have extended that to state that it's actually "impossible to bowl a doosra with what is commonly accepted as a bowling action, i.e. irrespective of the degrees of flexion, it is delivered with a throwing rather than bowling action". If that was the case, why hasn't the doosra been banned outright? Saying that all bowlers who've been looked-at so far have bowled with suspect doosras is one thing; saying that no-one could possibly bowl a doosra without throwing is another entirely.

 

[luckyeddie]

Actually, Kazo, I was only directing that to LE and Social. Your point seems acceptable to me, but there is simply no way we can be sure of what the intentions of a bowler is, so it is not very practical, IMHO. Plus, there are guys who whip up arm speed at the point of delivery, like Wasim and Agarkar and a few others, even Gillespie comes to mind. What you would end up doing is banning those guys too. Plus, while bowling slower balls etc., most fast bowlers including McGrath do slow down the release of the ball, which is similar to quickening the release of the ball at the poin of delivery, because both involves elbow flex. There are just too many variables here and it is not "black and white" as the current law is.

You can bring up all the usual suspects and all the tired arguments that everyone normally uses, but you will NEVER convince me that Botha and Shabbir have a place in cricket because they are blatant cheats.

Notice in my arguments I have never once mentioned the Sri Lankan Off-Spinner, but I will now - he was originally, rightly or wrongly (but very conveniently) taken as the yardstick and consequently, for political or other reasons, 'a bit more' than his off-break flexion was then taken as the arbitrary limit. Never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, he then took advantage of that situation and developed the doosra which didn't push the boundaries any further - they had already been moved to ensure that his stock delivery wasn't a transgression of the rules any more.

Convenient but not illegal.

 

[honestbharani]

You can bring up all the usual suspects and all the tired arguments that everyone normally uses, but you will NEVER convince me that Botha and Shabbir have a place in cricket because they are blatant cheats.

Notice in my arguments I have never once mentioned the Sri Lankan Off-Spinner, but I will now - he was originally, rightly or wrongly (but very conveniently) taken as the yardstick and consequently, for political or other reasons, 'a bit more' than his off-break flexion was then taken as the arbitrary limit. Never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, he then took advantage of that situation and developed the doosra which didn't push the boundaries any further - they had already been moved to ensure that his stock delivery wasn't a transgression of the rules any more.

Convenient but not illegal.

You are right, LE... It does seem the roadblock was set to help him, but if, say, they set it at 13, then we can all argue that it was set so that it would help McGrath and others... Actually, the only reason 15 was kept as the maximum was because all the bowlers came under that umbrella and AFAIC, it was the fairest thing to do in that situation.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm sorry mate, I undertstand your point but the bowlers you mentioned do not generate their pace with their wrist. Which is often the small subtle action I'm implying. To be generic they were not generating this pace of theirs through this subtle action. It may have been heightened at release but it's visible the difference. You can compare Wasim and Botha in pertaining to my theory yet you know well enough what it is I'm implying.

Actually bowling slower balls has more to do with the positioning of the fingers on the ball. E.g. McGrath releasing the ball with his middle finger while sliding off his index finger.

Furthermore, when a spinner chucks (as I've outlined by the flex and release point in previous posts) it is much more visible. This subtle action certainly contributes to more revolutions on the ball as the ball is released slightly faster because of the slight flex/push at release. In this case, spinners put one side and fast-bowlers on the other, it is MUCH easier to see who is a chucker when they're a spinner. In this reasoning it is why I see someone like Murali as a chucker, and not because of his hyper-extention and flexion really (although he really pushes the limits).

I suppose we have to agree to disagree here. But the very fact that your theory seems to have so little in terms of support here (I am not sure if it is all that fair to take CW as a sample space but still..) seems to show that what the ICC have done is the right thing under the circumstances. Differentiating the amount of flex allowed based on the type of bowler will never help anyone. At least now, it is all black and white. It is not COMPLETELY fair but it is as fair as it can be at the moment, IMHO.

 

[aussie]

Warne & Murali in India

dunno if this point has been brought up back again since Murali played in India recently, so i think we can compare their records their a bit more indepth now.

Well looking at Warne on his 3 tours their he was smashed in 98 when i top form but i dont think that was entirely due to the Indian batsmen just playing him well also due to the fact that Taylor practically burdened him with the responsibility of taking all the wickets & he didn't have McGrath.

India 2001 he was returning for his 1st test series in almost a year & even though he had played in the preceeding VB series he wasn't in top form simple.

While in 2004 he was in a purple patch & did fairly taking 14 wickets in 3 test @ 30.

Murali on the other hand on his 1st tour had very unflattering figures of 3 wickets @ 103 while having his Vaas. While last year he with Vaas again & India's batting very strong he redeemed himself with 16 wickets @ 31.

So looking at this we can see by the fact that 2 of the greatest spinners of all-time even at their best(when i say best in this sense i mean they were bowling at their prime & here their long serving comrads bowling well too i.e McGrath & Vaas) could only manage decent figures in India, so that should say that its though for spinners in general to bowl well to the Indian batsmen at home, so thus i would conclude that their not much if anything between Warne & Murali in India.

 

[luckyeddie]

You are right, LE... It does seem the roadblock was set to help him, but if, say, they set it at 13, then we can all argue that it was set so that it would help McGrath and others... Actually, the only reason 15 was kept as the maximum was because all the bowlers came under that umbrella and AFAIC, it was the fairest thing to do in that situation.

The only problem I have with making everything subject to the rigorous and stringent testing at the highest level (and I have 100% faith in the 'correctness' of the findings) is that it is creating a situation where more and more of these unorthodox actions are going to come into the game - that's indisputable because it's already happening.

The last time it was this bad was at the end of the 1950's and the beginning of the 1960's, but then a huge clampdown occurred, much of which was due to Don Bradman finally opening his eyes to an intolerable situation (when the Ashes series had six chuckers on show, finally people decided that enough was enough).

What can you do now though? Guys in village cricket can't be sent away for tests at 10,000 quid a throw (apt choice of words).

Now back to Murali v Warne.

 

[Jono]

dunno if this point has been brought up back again since Murali played in India recently, so i think we can compare their records their a bit more indepth now.

Well looking at Warne on his 3 tours their he was smashed in 98 when i top form but i dont think that was entirely due to the Indian batsmen just playing him well also due to the fact that Taylor practically burdened him with the responsibility of taking all the wickets & he didn't have McGrath.

India 2001 he was returning for his 1st test series in almost a year & even though he had played in the preceeding VB series he wasn't in top form simple.

While in 2004 he was in a purple patch & did fairly taking 14 wickets in 3 test @ 30.

Murali on the other hand on his 1st tour had very unflattering figures of 3 wickets @ 103 while having his Vaas. While last year he with Vaas again & India's batting very strong he redeemed himself with 16 wickets @ 31.

So looking at this we can see by the fact that 2 of the greatest spinners of all-time even at their best(when i say best in this sense i mean they were bowling at their prime & here their long serving comrads bowling well too i.e McGrath & Vaas) could only manage decent figures in India, so that should say that its though for spinners in general to bowl well to the Indian batsmen at home, so thus i would conclude that their not much if anything between Warne & Murali in India.

You should mention though aussie that in Murali's 1997/98 tour of India the wickets he bowled on were the most batsman friendly wickets I think I've ever seen in my time watching cricket. He played 1 1/2 test matches in that series as well, both turned out to be draws.

Also didn't Murali tour India in 1993/94, averaging 35 in that tour? That's reasonable considering he debuted in 1992/93, just one season earlier.

 

[aussie]

You should mention though aussie that in Murali's 1997/98 tour of India the wickets he bowled on were the most batsman friendly wickets I think I've ever seen in my time watching cricket. He played 1 1/2 test matches in that series as well, both turned out to be draws.

Also didn't Murali tour India in 1993/94, averaging 35 in that tour? That's reasonable considering he debuted in 1992/93, just one season earlier.

you sure you are not mixing up that Sri lankan tour to India in 97/98, to India's tour to SRI in early 97 when you talk about the extreme batsman friendly conditions?

Also i didn't add that 93/94 series for Murali because i didn't know he played then. But even if you add that in he was young then & didn't & wasn't regarded has highly as in 97 & 2005 & averaged 35 & in 2005 he only improved his averaged 4 to 31 which is still just decent, so the point still stands.

 

[Ikki]

I suppose we have to agree to disagree here. But the very fact that your theory seems to have so little in terms of support here (I am not sure if it is all that fair to take CW as a sample space but still..) seems to show that what the ICC have done is the right thing under the circumstances. Differentiating the amount of flex allowed based on the type of bowler will never help anyone. At least now, it is all black and white. It is not COMPLETELY fair but it is as fair as it can be at the moment, IMHO.

I do not know about the support that I have or have not been getting in regards to my argument. I feel there is a good air of agreeance by some. However, I could be the only one willing to put my neck out and upset a few people...that's fine by me.

In regards to the situation now, it is I think far from BLACK and WHITE and I think you're short-sighted in the effect such hindrance in law will have to cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Aha, so you were talking about your personal view and not some 'culturally-agreed' definition of a bowl afterall. Thanks for clearing that up. Try not to misrepresent your own views as a consensus next time.

As for whether it's visible to the naked eye, you'd think that the fact there are bowlers who to the naked eye are obvious chuckers but under slower analysis are proven not to be (Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee's hyper-extension, for example) would give you some motivation for pause. That would be more scientific than assuming you could decide whether a bowler bowls with a legal action from outside the boundary rope or looking at vision from zoom-lensed cameras with no scales or measuring tools of any sort positioned same.

You asked me what I thought it was...so I gave you that snippet. I mentioned further back that it would be very hard to define such an action, considering I'm not a biomechanic, and from what I've learn't from playing the game, asking professionals and coaches, I consider what I know and what is usually agreed upon by my peers as the culturally correct opinion in regards to bowling action. I cannot say that EVERYONE will agree with me, especially nowadays since it is more in the air than ever. I think you took what I was saying wrongly as well...when I implied what was culturally accepted in the cricketing institution I mean't to what was being adhered to at the time. You can call McGrath a chucker now because of what you may or may have not found out about human physiology but back then his action would have had no question to it and why? Because it was culturally accepted... Did you understand that or would you like me to go over it again?

You mentioned fast bowlers in your rebuttal...however my argument is mostly with the spinners. I agree that fast-bowlers would be hard to pick up and for that I always welcome a testing phase to determine whether it is or isn't. With spinners however, this is a different story...it doesn't mean they should be void of tests as well...I mean to imply it is much easier to pick up a chucking spinner.

Now you hammered the point that it was my opinion and that alone...and if you think you're not part of the consensus that I am talking about feel free to object. Just let the others that disagree with you speak for themselves as well.

 

[social]

Aha, so you were talking about your personal view and not some 'culturally-agreed' definition of a bowl afterall. Thanks for clearing that up. Try not to misrepresent your own views as a consensus next time.

As for whether it's visible to the naked eye, you'd think that the fact there are bowlers who to the naked eye are obvious chuckers but under slower analysis are proven not to be (Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee's hyper-extension, for example) would give you some motivation for pause. That would be more scientific than assuming you could decide whether a bowler bowls with a legal action from outside the boundary rope or looking at vision from zoom-lensed cameras with no scales or measuring tools of any sort positioned same.





I've heard or read no such thing anywhere and I'm wondering where you did. I've heard that those who've been pinched so far have bowled with suspect doosras and that it's "difficult" to bowl a doosra legally but nowhere have I read that biomechnists have extended that to state that it's actually "impossible to bowl a doosra with what is commonly accepted as a bowling action, i.e. irrespective of the degrees of flexion, it is delivered with a throwing rather than bowling action". If that was the case, why hasn't the doosra been banned outright? Saying that all bowlers who've been looked-at so far have bowled with suspect doosras is one thing; saying that no-one could possibly bowl a doosra without throwing is another entirely.

1. UWA reports

2. Bio-mechanists are not there to determine intention or whether action conforms to usually accepted fundamentals of a bowling action. They are there simply to determine the degree of flexion in the action.

As I suggested earlier, if a baseball pitcher had less than 15 degrees of flexion in his action, then by my interpretation of the laws, he's good to go.

 

[Deja moo]

So let me see if I can follow your logic.

Tony Greig talks to SA coach.

Coach reveals that Botha has spent time in India with Harby and regards him as type of mentor

Tony Greig reveals this to millions

Social reports this to CW

Jono and DM see "Botha" and "Harbi" in same sentence and throw toys out of cot.

Grow up Deja boohoohoo

Lets see this pretty boy,

Botha regards Harby as a mentor without having even met him once in his life.

He makes the Saffie team.

He tours India. He then meets harby.

So, unless you're saying that Botha has significantly altered his action after that tour to India, you are, as usual talking complete bull. Whats your age, again ?

 

[Deja moo]

BTW, I'm yet to see your explanation as to why you wouldnt hold Holding responsible for Shabbirs situation

Hey, I think I'll regard McGrath as my mentor. You'd better blame him if I chuck !

 

[Jono]

you sure you are not mixing up that Sri lankan tour to India in 97/98, to India's tour to SRI in early 97 when you talk about the extreme batsman friendly conditions?

Actually I am. Apologies for that.

Also i didn't add that 93/94 series for Murali because i didn't know he played then. But even if you add that in he was young then & didn't & wasn't regarded has highly as in 97 & 2005 & averaged 35 & in 2005 he only improved his averaged 4 to 31 which is still just decent, so the point still stands.

Well, if he's able to bowl well whilst he's young and not highly regarded, it shouldn't really be held against him should it? Especially considering Sidhu was in the team then, and he murdered spin bowling.

 

[Top_Cat]

You can call McGrath a chucker now because of what you may or may have not found out about human physiology but back then his action would have had no question to it and why? Because it was culturally accepted... Did you understand that or would you like me to go over it again?

Oh I got it. The point is, under the original laws with what we know about natural human movement now, that McGrath wouldn't have been called is a function of lack of information, not a correct decision. The old law said that no bending then subsequent straightening was allowed. It made no distinction between natural or deliberate flexion because it was predicated on the assumption that any flexion must have been deliberate. Therefore, by the letter of the law and allowing for the fact no-one can bowl without natural flexion, everyone 'chucked'. This isn't a measure saying every deliberately threw it highlighted a logical deficiency in the law itself. Hence it has now been rectified.

The downside is that umpires are now not able to correctly judge (to acceptable standards) whether a bowler throws in real-time. Why? No-one can, at full-speed, see a bowler bowling with 10 degrees of flexion and another with 16 degrees and be able to tell the difference with certainty. This obviously creates problems with delays in adjudication but personally, I'd rather get it right and avoid ending someone's career unnecessarily and sacrifice real-time (but ultimately non-precise) adjudication by on-field umpires.

You mentioned fast bowlers in your rebuttal...however my argument is mostly with the spinners. I agree that fast-bowlers would be hard to pick up and for that I always welcome a testing phase to determine whether it is or isn't. With spinners however, this is a different story...it doesn't mean they should be void of tests as well...I mean to imply it is much easier to pick up a chucking spinner.

A myth. Some spinners have quicker arm-speeds than pace-bowlers at Test-level even. This is the crux of the point; it is an illusion that you can actually determine whether a bowler is flexing illegally or not, regardless of whether you think you can. The human eye has limits and you're effectively arguing that yours exceeds them. With some spinners it may be a little bit easier if you're lucky but even then, not to a satisfactory level of precision were I the bowler in question. Even with someone who has eagle-eyes, I'd be demanding lab tests before any determination is made on the legality or otherwise of my bowling. You may THINK you can tell but I bet if I conducted an experiment where I was able to eliminate natural bias (by showing footage of both pace and spin bowlers but only showing you the arm itself so you couldn't tell which was which), you'd be wrong more often than you were right by some distance. It's not a criticism of you, it's that NO-ONE can be as precise as standards require.

1. UWA reports

I've read a few relating to specific bowlers and I've read a more generalised theory paper and nowhere have I seen such an assertion. So, an example?

2. Bio-mechanists are not there to determine intention or whether action conforms to usually accepted fundamentals of a bowling action. They are there simply to determine the degree of flexion in the action.

Point?

As I suggested earlier, if a baseball pitcher had less than 15 degrees of flexion in his action, then by my interpretation of the laws, he's good to go.

And this is a redundant argument because if a pitcher was actually able to 'pitch' with less than 15 degrees of flexion (nearly impossible; try it), then they'd virtually be bowling anyway. So in reality, they'd be less a pitcher and more a bowler who bowls off a one-step run-up. Even then, in order to do so, they'd compromise so much on pace/zip that they'd be useless. You seem to have this image in your mind of these devious pitchers standing at the popping crease pinging the ball at the batsmen. I say, logically, it can't be done; to keep the arm within the 15 degree limit, they'd be a pretty useless bowler. As I said, try it.

 

[social]

Lets see this pretty boy,

Botha regards Harby as a mentor without having even met him once in his life.

He makes the Saffie team.

He tours India. He then meets harby.

So, unless you're saying that Botha has significantly altered his action after that tour to India, you are, as usual talking complete bull. Whats your age, again ?

Good argument.

First you say that Botha has never met Harbi

Now it's

OOOOh! Botha and Harbi in same sentence = Harbi is a chucker

Debating obviously wasnt offered at your school.

 

[social]

Oh I got it. The point is, under the original laws with what we know about natural human movement now, that McGrath wouldn't have been called is a function of lack of information, not a correct decision. The old law said that no bending then subsequent straightening was allowed. It made no distinction between natural or deliberate flexion because it was predicated on the assumption that any flexion must have been deliberate. Therefore, by the letter of the law and allowing for the fact no-one can bowl without natural flexion, everyone 'chucked'. This isn't a measure saying every deliberately threw it highlighted a logical deficiency in the law itself. Hence it has now been rectified.

The downside is that umpires are now not able to correctly judge (to acceptable standards) whether a bowler throws in real-time. Why? No-one can, at full-speed, see a bowler bowling with 10 degrees of flexion and another with 16 degrees and be able to tell the difference with certainty. This obviously creates problems with delays in adjudication but personally, I'd rather get it right and avoid ending someone's career unnecessarily and sacrifice real-time (but ultimately non-precise) adjudication by on-field umpires.



A myth. Some spinners have quicker arm-speeds than pace-bowlers at Test-level even. This is the crux of the point; it is an illusion that you can actually determine whether a bowler is flexing illegally or not, regardless of whether you think you can. The human eye has limits and you're effectively arguing that yours exceeds them. With some spinners it may be a little bit easier if you're lucky but even then, not to a satisfactory level of precision were I the bowler in question. Even with someone who has eagle-eyes, I'd be demanding lab tests before any determination is made on the legality or otherwise of my bowling. You may THINK you can tell but I bet if I conducted an experiment where I was able to eliminate natural bias (by showing footage of both pace and spin bowlers but only showing you the arm itself so you couldn't tell which was which), you'd be wrong more often than you were right by some distance. It's not a criticism of you, it's that NO-ONE can be as precise as standards require.



I've read a few relating to specific bowlers and I've read a more generalised theory paper and nowhere have I seen such an assertion. So, an example?



Point?



And this is a redundant argument because if a pitcher was actually able to 'pitch' with less than 15 degrees of flexion (nearly impossible; try it), then they'd virtually be bowling anyway. So in reality, they'd be less a pitcher and more a bowler who bowls off a one-step run-up. Even then, in order to do so, they'd compromise so much on pace/zip that they'd be useless. You seem to have this image in your mind of these devious pitchers standing at the popping crease pinging the ball at the batsmen. I say, logically, it can't be done; to keep the arm within the 15 degree limit, they'd be a pretty useless bowler. As I said, try it.

Google UWA, illegal bowling actions, and Muralitharan.

All relevant repots are there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Google UWA, illegal bowling actions, and Muralitharan.

All relevant repots are there.

I did and all I found of relevance was an article almost two years old when the bowling flexion limits were 5 degrees and even then it says;

After the tests, conducted with state-of-the-art technology at the Biomechanics Laboratory in UWA, the conclusion in the Bowling Report is that "Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his `doosra' at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines. The relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal to release is not believed to give Mr. Muralitharan an unfair advantage over batsmen or other bowlers".

That's a direct quote from the UWA report.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905562200.htm

The response was that obviously 5 degrees for spinners and 10 for pace bowlers was too small a margin considering measurements of mean flexions of most bowlers so the decision was made to increase it to 15 degrees. That was common-sense. At that point there wasn't a data set which was extensive enough to determine what the flexion limits should have been. Once the data was collected, the 15 degree limit came along.

Even the original UWA report was done before the 15 degree limit came along;

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm

Either way, still no mention of anyone saying it's impossible to bowl the doosra inside of the limits. Again, an example?